John Fedup
The Bunker Group
...because they are so caring....for themselves. There is a word for them, hypocrites.Are you telling me that all those pollies that vote against health care have already got their own good systemwonder why this is.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
An other point to keep inmind is that NZ (1924 figures) has the lowest personal tax rates in the OECD and a total tax take significantly below the OECD average yet this governmwnt did tax cuts and then complained about a lack of money.
A lot of medications are also much more expensive than in other countries for the exact same product. Drug companies exist to make money, they will charge for their products whatever they believe the market in each country is willing (or able) to pay.
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
at the risk of continuing to drift further off topic into politics...
I'm guessing most ppl on this forum vote centre right.
In defence news:
NZ is exploriong the military version of Musks Starlink (more tax payer money being syphoned to the rich )
Phil Pennington on RNZ also has some indepth follow up on Pete Hegseths freeloading comments:
I'm guessing most ppl on this forum vote centre right.
In defence news:
NZ is exploriong the military version of Musks Starlink (more tax payer money being syphoned to the rich
)Phil Pennington on RNZ also has some indepth follow up on Pete Hegseths freeloading comments:
Hegseth is a blow hard, looks like the realtionship is good. The cynic in me thinks the 3.5% target set by Trump etc is as much about US arms sales as anything else.
danonz
Member
To be fair to Hegseth, the journalist asked a loaded question, and his response wasn't as berating as the headlines suggest. The target is part of what was agreed to by all NATO members, and we are a friend and/or partner of NATO.
- The 3.5% Target: At the 2025 NATO Summit, Allies formally committed to investing at least 3.5% of their national GDP on core, traditional defense requirements by 2035.
- The 5% Overarching Target: In addition to the core 3.5%, Allies committed to raising their total annual spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. The additional 1.5% is intended for dual-use and resilience investments, such as defending cyber networks, protecting critical infrastructure, and strengthening the industrial base.
-
Defence expenditures and NATO’s 5% commitment
At the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Allies made a commitment to investing 5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually on core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending by 2035. They will allocate at least 3.5% of GDP annually based on the agreed definition of NATO defence...
www.nato.int
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
This 3.5% questions is pretty simple to answer. If NATO committed to that as an appropriate amount, then if we are below that, then it is clear we are not providing the same proportional resources as others. Other countries also have debt, social security, infrastructure, health and education bills. Pretty simple if you are below what others are doing, but you want to be seen as part of the group, then you are free loading to a degree. I will not comment on if that is an appropriate amount as i am not an expert but more resources means more capability.
It seems clear that more capability is required so that it deters conflict, imagine what would happen to our economy if there was a conflict in the south china sea. Our economy would grind to a halt and there would be nothing we would be able to do.
It seems clear that more capability is required so that it deters conflict, imagine what would happen to our economy if there was a conflict in the south china sea. Our economy would grind to a halt and there would be nothing we would be able to do.
A proven system in use with other 5EYES militaries.In defence news:
NZ is exploriong the military version of Musks Starlink (more tax payer money being syphoned to the rich
That said, I think there would be value in a sovereign satellite constellation over the Pacific.
We even have our own rich bloke here that could facilitate it...
Rather than a 'sovereign" that is NZ only a Pacific sovereign by the major players in the region - NZ, Australia, France and UK - would make a lot of sense and spread the risk. If you think about the Pacific and the Southern Ocean (including southern Indian ocean) then that grouping makes a lot of sense. If 5Eyes was going to be an issue then remove France but that would be a shame.
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
Rnz article 3/6/26
Another article states the uk has started using starshield and quotes a US aerospace analyst stating he was not aware of its use outside the US.
I wonder if there are concerns about data sovereignty using starshield and other tech bro billionaire AI systems, like when no one wanted huwai to invest in UK/AU infrastructure.
I like the idea of sovereign capability. Not sure we could though. There was a chch based company making hi alt, long endurance drones.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I don't trust Musk and any of his companies to honest and data leaks, especially under current administration if you look what happened with the Dutch and Microsoft, EU are now moving away from Microsoft, Google & Amazon etc
Microsoft Accused Of Sharing Dutch Officials’ Data with U.S. Government Yes there is more to it and this was the final reason for the many in the EU to drop and cut ties with the big three...
Last edited:
Luxon keeps referencing that Aussie nuclear-powered submarines as not even relevant until the 2040s/2050s when being asked by various Kiwi media commentators for his opinion in relation to Chris Penk suggesting that it may be time to have a discussion about nuclear powered vs nuclear armed vessels entering New Zealand ports.
Surely the Kiwi media are going to figure out that 20232 is just around the corner.
Australia is the sole military alliance partner with NZ; I just find it a little bizarre that the discussion is being shut down like this.
Should Australia politely accept this and simply exclude NZ from CONOPS for the new VCS? It makes no sense to me.
Surely the Kiwi media are going to figure out that 20232 is just around the corner.
Australia is the sole military alliance partner with NZ; I just find it a little bizarre that the discussion is being shut down like this.
Should Australia politely accept this and simply exclude NZ from CONOPS for the new VCS? It makes no sense to me.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
No need to get too agitated, we have an election coming up in a few months time and the PM appears to be shutting down what would be an unnecessary distraction and a boon to the Leftist side of the media, politicians and former political "elders" just waiting for air time to rage. Luxon has chosen his words carefully - not whilst he is PM (and come 2032 someone else will likely be PM anyway). Anyway the "good news" is there is some media coverage about separating nuclear propulsion aspects and that of supporting NZ's ally, small steps at the moment but steps in the right direction.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Even better news there is more and more media coverage of our defence force being under fundedAnyway the "good news" is there is some media coverage about separating nuclear propulsion aspects and that of supporting NZ's ally, small steps at the moment but steps in the right direction.
In terms of domestic capabilities, RocketLab is a credible "full stack" space provider (and is already building and launching satellites with core Starshield type capabilities for the US govt).
Not beyond the realm of possibilities for an NZG commissioned LEO sovereign constellation over the South Pacific; it would be invaluable for defence but also support national resilience and high tech manufacturing and jobs. Need an NZG with vision though, so the cynic in me says it likely won't happen.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
RocketLab is mainly a US company now... while we have a full subsidiary in NZ that is NZ owned it not the main company
This true, however it is the rocket production sight and the launch site. The US part allows it to launch USG satilites.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
The Auckland subsidiary is I believe 100% NZ owned and run...
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
I've heard on other defence forums rumours Nzdf could be fast tracking some of these big ticket items like the Sea guardian in significant numbers, or even that the SOPV hasn't been cancelled and we'll likely end up with two military speced ones off damen based on the Canadian Arctic patrol ones, to suppliment the frigate replacements? Is there any substance behind this happening or just someone's wish list?
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I very much doubt it... Though the SOPV is technically not cancelled only shelved...
Sounds very much like wish list thinking....here's a link to a budget factsheet that's clearly states the capability to provide long-duration intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance over the South-West Pacific will be 'Uncrewed surface vessels and enabling systems" ...that sounds precisely like more BlueBottle USV which the ADF is also investing heavily in. The other capability is a polar-capable uncrewed aerial platform for deployment from HMNZS Aotaeroa which certainly won't be Sea Guardian. TBH I'm not a fan of BlueBottle but hey it does have some utility. The DCP did state an 'Long-range remotely piloted aircraft' but no details provided as yet and it seems unlikely 'significant numbers' would be planned.